PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CIF.TO vs. ENFR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CIF.TO vs. ENFR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CIF.TO (iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both Energy Equities funds - CIF.TO tracks the Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index while ENFR tracks the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CIF.TO returned 13.60%/yr vs 13.08%/yr for ENFR. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CIF.TO charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.

Performance

CIF.TO vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CIF.TO is traded in CAD, while ENFR is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ENFR values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with CIF.TO having a 28.46% return and ENFR slightly higher at 29.16%. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CIF.TO having a 13.60% annualized return and ENFR not far behind at 13.08%.

CIF.TO

1D
-0.38%
1M
4.41%
YTD
28.46%
6M
21.72%
1Y
37.55%
3Y*
27.25%
5Y*
19.05%
10Y*
13.60%

ENFR

1D
1.40%
1M
-1.87%
YTD
29.16%
6M
28.75%
1Y
31.66%
3Y*
32.13%
5Y*
23.49%
10Y*
13.08%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CIF.TO vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		28.46%14.57%25.83%14.99%6.22%18.14%-0.31%24.93%-5.12%2.73%
ENFR
Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF		29.16%1.05%54.21%12.88%24.93%39.90%-25.94%16.59%-11.83%-6.95%

Correlation

The correlation between CIF.TO and ENFR is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.19

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.43

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.50

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2013

0.49

Over the past year, the correlation between CIF.TO and ENFR has dropped to 0.19 - well below their long-term average of 0.49, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CIF.TO vs. ENFR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CIF.TO
ENFR

Utilities

44.9%
1.4%

Industrials

34.6%
3.4%

Energy

19.8%
98.5%

Technology

0.7%

-

Consumer Cyclical

0.5%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

0.1%

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

CIF.TO
44.9%
ENFR
1.4%

Industrials

CIF.TO
34.6%
ENFR
3.4%

Energy

CIF.TO
19.8%
ENFR
98.5%

Technology

CIF.TO
0.7%
ENFR

-

Consumer Cyclical

CIF.TO
0.5%
ENFR

-

Basic Materials

CIF.TO

-

ENFR

-

Communication Services

CIF.TO

-

ENFR

-

Consumer Defensive

CIF.TO

-

ENFR

-

Financial Services

CIF.TO

-

ENFR
0.1%

Healthcare

CIF.TO

-

ENFR

-

Real Estate

CIF.TO

-

ENFR

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF

Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF

Often compared with CIF.TO:
CIF.TO vs. VFV.TOCIF.TO vs. MLPP.LCIF.TO vs. ZQQ.TOCIF.TO vs. CWW.TOCIF.TO vs. ZGI.TOCIF.TO vs. VGTCIF.TO vs. XDIV.TO
Often compared with ENFR:
ENFR vs. AMLPENFR vs. MLPXENFR vs. TPYPENFR vs. UMIENFR vs. EMLPENFR vs. MPLXENFR vs. ATMP

Return for Risk

CIF.TO vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CIF.TO
CIF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
Martin Ratio Rank
ENFR
ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 5050
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

CIF.TO vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

CIF.TOENFRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.42
2.05

+0.36

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.23
2.80

+0.42

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.35

+0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.97

3.79

+0.18

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.20

9.46

+4.74

CIF.TO vs. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.42, which is comparable to the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIF.TO and ENFR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

CIF.TO vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIF.TO drawdown since its inception was -45.41%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -60.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIF.TO and ENFR.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CIF.TOENFRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.41%

-60.32%

+14.91%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.49%

-8.39%

-1.10%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.33%

-15.96%

-4.37%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.33%

-17.22%

-3.11%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.41%

-60.32%

+14.91%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.38%

-1.87%

+1.49%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.74%

-9.76%

+0.02%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.65%

3.36%

-0.71%

Volatility

CIF.TO vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) is 4.77%, while Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) has a volatility of 6.12%. This indicates that CIF.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ENFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CIF.TOENFRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.77%

6.12%

-1.35%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.80%

12.12%

+0.68%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.62%

15.51%

+0.11%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.16%

19.93%

-4.77%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.98%

25.18%

+0.80%

CIF.TO vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIF.TO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIF.TO vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

CIF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, less than ENFR's 4.02% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		1.77%2.14%3.13%2.63%2.83%2.55%2.37%2.11%2.82%2.64%2.09%2.81%
ENFR
Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF		4.02%4.77%4.41%5.48%5.23%7.86%7.57%5.81%3.98%2.98%3.31%3.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

CIF.TO and ENFR have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CIF.TO.

CIF.TO tracks Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index, while ENFR tracks Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for CIF.TO and 0.35% for ENFR.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CIF.TO and ENFR

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer